Sad Brit Nutters Try to Change the World...

[rachamim18]

Before people begin arguing things they have not even taken the basic time to peruse, I have taken it upon myself to present the actual offending motion:

25:7 "Colleagues be asked to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institituions and to DISCUSS THE OCCUPATION WITH INDIVIDUALS AND INSTITITUIONS CONCERNED INCLUDING ISRAELI COLLEAGUES WITH WHOM THEY ARE COLLABORATING."

Emphasis of course provided by myself. Seems innocuous in and of itself except when one does the footwork and finds that this is the toned down version as per the legal team representing the Union. They have tried since 2004 to push this garbage and this is the version that passed legal scrutiny. By ASKING members to discuss the personal political outlook of any Israeli academic they are "collaborating" with, it accomplishes what it wishes within the confines of British Law.

Now, let others examine it and see if they agree with the view that I was concentrating on fallacies.

 

[rachamim18]

Oh, and Spion? Since you have used the same toned down quoye, I will provide the original motions and we will see what the picture really was. That SHOULD solve the differences but knowing U75 probably open up another worthless bag. We shall see.

 

[Spion]

Why do you object to discussion of the occupation?

 

[rachamim18]

I object to mandatory discussions of anything. I feel that INDIVIDUAL members of any organisation should have the right to discuss anything that crosses their minds and that any subsequent business or cooperation that takes place should not hinge on that cooperation.

By the way, was reading an interesting piece just now on a pro-Democray website that was pretaining to the 2007 Boycott push. The posted a verbatim rendering of a call made in 1938 for an Academic Boycott of Czeckoslovakia because it was not promptly moving on the issue of self determination for the Sudenten Germans. The wording, and this is the kicker, is ALMOST verbatim that of the current Boycott Movement! Everything from talks of occupation, Apartheid analogies, and so on.


Then I was reading a statement from thr International Council of Science, an organisation to which I belong and its reaction to the 2007 push and apparently, even calling for an Academic Boycott violates the tenets of THAT organisation (Statue 5).

The whole idea of an academic boycott is retarded because thast is tradtionally the one area of society where change is effected most and quickest, but to then direct adherents of an organisation to discuss issues involving the personal and political viewpoints of correspondants is atrocious.

I also want to remind readers here that the whole idea was spawned in 2002 (although the first push came in 2004) by "PAlestinian Trade Unionists" soo that it is a partisan action and not one of free thinking academics. They are tools.

Finally, in terms of "occupation" itself, Spion you know my views on this quite well. To be an "occupation" there must first exist a nation on which to occupy and there has never been a "Palestine" nor an Arab nation there. Israel is occupying land that has only held Jewish nations so that at worst, Israel is occupying its own land. The whole idea is that of an imbecile.

 

[Ungrateful]

Colleagues be asked to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institituions and to DISCUSS THE OCCUPATION WITH INDIVIDUALS AND INSTITITUIONS CONCERNED INCLUDING ISRAELI COLLEAGUES WITH WHOM THEY ARE COLLABORATING."

You do see that this motion is quite different in wording and intention than the one you stated - that ''all Jews are required to answer any questions about any type of personal views' -- as you yourself have, rightly pointed out not all Israelis are Jews or Jews are Israelis. As you have now moved on to discuss the pros and cons of the actual proposal. " I object to mandatory discussions of anything....' I assume you have now, at least for the moment accepted you were wrong here. Like I say admitting you were wrong about the nature and intention of the UCU motion, does not mean the motion itself is right, only your original interpretation of it was inaccurate.

However, your current interpretation is still wrong. It does not mandate UCU members to do anything, it simply 'asks them to consider'. If I ask you to feed the cat, I am not mandating you to do so, or threatening reprisals on you for failing to do so. It is a request not on an order. Clearly there is a deliberate bias towards Palestinians in the motion, because it is they whose freedom of movement and freedom to study, under current Israeli governance, who is being restricted. If the situation was different, so that Country X systematically depriived movement and freedom of study to Jewish academics (on the security grounds of that state), and such academics requested help from the wider academic community, I assume you wouldn't say that we shouldn't support them because such a motion was biased against country X or 'partisan' towards Jewish trade unionists (04-06-2008 12:23)?

I have no idea what your reference to 1938 refers to. I fear another breach of Godwin's Law. Which again raises questions as to whether you really are a committed supporter of Israel, or as I am beginning to fear, someone with an elaborate cover story....

 

[rachamim18]

Again, you are missing the crucial point. The ORIGINAL WORDING has been changed to suit the legal teams perspective.

I have no problem with being in error but sorry, as stated (many times now), I am certainly not wrong in this case, An organisation changes its final wording per legal advice and now I AM WRONG? Would you then prefer to discuss the original woprding? Or the 4 successive tries at implementing such nonsense?

"IT asks them to consider.": Because of legal advice it was retooled and yet ASKING is still atrocious. One's personl views are one's own thought, privy to noone lest an individual decide to volunteer them as I am doing here and now. For someone I am iniating an academic relationship with to sit and propose I answer such drivel is absolutely insane but then I suspect that since it is no longer a mandatory action that you see nothing negative about it.

Israel does not deprive students of any movement. It DOES require that they apply for and receive a pass that enables them to transit Check Points,etc at an expedited rate. Why is it even neccessary? I would much prefer that no Check Points exist but then there are not any Israelis wwalking into Ramallah cafes and detonating 20 kilos of plastique and 10 kilos of razor shards, are there? As long as such a very real threat exists, sstudents will sadly have to put up with this uncomfortable obstacle to their studies.

Since universities are the place where change is effected most and fastest, as has been discussed, maybe those smiling lads at Bir Zeit could iniate a non-violence movement and resort to sit ins to get their point acrss as opposed to spalshing the craniums of 4 month old Israeli infants across Mazda windshields.

As for those seeking to study aborad, as in Fulbright Scholars (since that too was newsworthy this week), there is a well established protocol in place that has worked wonderfully since 1982, but for some reason (one imagine propaganda) failed to work as it ought to. The corresponding institution need contact a specific liason in the PMO and all is well...UNLESS an applicant is in posession of a medium or higher rated Security Dossier. In that case, all bets are off but that is rarely the case because those that rise to the hieghts of scholarship in those places usualy devote all free time to that endeavour and have no time for the usual indoctrinational nonsense.

"If the situation were reversed and the students were Jews.": In fact is has been, often, in many countries and more specifically never because our people used themselves as human bombs, like some "Palestinians" are known to do.

My reference to 1938 was explained in detail. For your benefit though I will do so again. I had been reading, just prior to that posting, of a British Academic Boycott Movement aimed in defence of the ethnic Germans in what is now Czeckloslovakia, the Sudenten Germans. The wording was almost verbatim that of your current British Academic Boycott proponenets and I found it quite ironic that then, like now, Brits find themselve such political tools on the "WRONG" side.

As for your idea that I have an eleborate cover story...I mean this with the kindest of intentions, there Is help available. If you need assistance finding the proper help, please feel free, independant of these discussions, to let me know and I will try and point you in the right direction.

I used to get a chuckle when misguided...souls...came up with that nugget but now see it as symptomatic of some kind of disorder. The person holds different views, he MUST be part of some conspiracy theory. Yes, you have unmasked me, I am paid by C18 to pretend to be a Jewish Israeli and you have now blown my cover...What to do? You Brits certainly do have a droill sense of humour. Anyway, comes with the territory I gather. The worst part by far? Having to put mustard in my food for 24 years while I was a combat officer in Israel. Now I will never again face that pain thanks to your unmasking. Thank you a million times and more.Sigh...

 

[Ungrateful]

Again, you are missing the crucial point. The ORIGINAL WORDING has been changed to suit the legal teams perspective.

So 1) you do now admit that the current motion does not say what you claimed. 2) If it was changed -- would you please show me where the original wording that demands Jews (and Jews alone) have to disclose their private political views? All I need is a copy of the original motion, (a single primary source).

I used to get a chuckle when misguided...souls...

Yup I was deliberately misinterpreting your intentions as an analogy for your actions against others. Though there are signs of far more overt antisemitism in your posts (failing to distinguish between Jews and Israelis; trivial uses of the Nazi analogy) than in anything I have so far seen at first hand from UCU. Unless, of course, as I have repeatedly asked, you can give an overt example.

"If the situation were reversed and the students were Jews.": In fact is has been, often, in many countries and more specifically never because our people used themselves as human bombs, like some "Palestinians" are known to do.

Sorry, I don't understand this -- it seems to be a non-sequitor, I don't see what the appalling incidents of suicide bombings have to with the central question raised: Would you have supported a boycott against Country X which treated Jewish academics in the way described? Would it be a sign of a general prejudice against the citizens of country X to have proposed such a boycott?

 

[Spion]

Would you have supported a boycott against Country X which treated Jewish academics in the way described? Would it be a sign of a general prejudice against the citizens of country X to have proposed such a boycott?

There was a boycott of nazi Germany by Jewish organisations in 1933. Would Rachamim have supported that?

I think I know where he'd have been on that one

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch06.htm

 

[rachamim18]

Spion: "Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany in 1933, would Rachamim have supported it?": In the Artistic and Academic Avenues, certainly not. in Fact, it was illegal to perform the works of Wagner in a public venue up until a few years ago (if I remember correctly, it was 3 years ago) and I did NOT support that.

If individuals choose to disassociate themselves from whatever entity, for whatever cause, that of course should be their perogative.Should it be organisational? in some cases yes. Never should it be against Artistic or Academic avenues/entities because it is non-sensical. You are trying to effect change within a culture but nip at the bud the two easiest and quickest ways with which to do this.

So Spion, I think you need to know be a tad biot better before predicting my response(s).

 

[rachamim18]

Ungrateful:"So Rachamim now admits that the current motion does not say what Rachamim originally said it did?" No offence, and I mean this sincerely, but that is a stupid question. IF I have REPEATEDLY mentioned that the legal team of this organisation advised this entity to change the wording, and I have even gone so far as to list the new language, why would you ask that?

A question then, for you: Are you iniating discourse for the purposes of antagonism, discourse itself, or some unforseen objective?

"IF it was changed....": I do believe that the link I provided has the union itself saying as much.


"...Could Rachamim provide a source for the original wording that Rachamim claimed existed?": You mean aside from the author of the Jerusalem Post article whose name I have mentioned no less than 3 times?

"Jews alone.": You are in error here because I have repeatedly stated that the wording asked this of "Jews and Israelis." I am sure that I of all people have no need to inform you that Israel is merely 80% Jewish at most. It is also probably also pointless for me to remind you that since they included Jews from among the non-Israeli population, that they probably only meant that Jewish-Israelis should be questioned since most foreigners are under the deluded fanmtasy that Israel's policies are all the result of Jewish legislators or are unaware that non-Jews can even serve in its govt. let alone vote.

"Copy of the Original Motion.": I am sorry, forgive me if I am in error but did you not tell us that you were a memeber of the entity in question? Either way I am sure that with a bit of time and digging (and patience on your part because I have someone who was promised some source material before you) that I should rather easily (I imagine) provide a copy of the original motion Johnny Paul talks about.

"Overt Anti-Semitism.": The word "anti -Semitism" is misnomer in terrible taste although granted, in popular currency. Jews are far from the only Semites on Earth and yet this horrid phrase is defined as a hatred of Jews. Better, I think in my mdoicum of opinion, that "anti-Jewishness" is far more apt a term.

You suggesting that I engage in anti-Jewishness for failing to delinate between Jew and Israeli is also a bit comical because I have often railed long and boringly on that distinction both within this forum and loads of other sources.I do not know where you imagine I have doens so here but if it is regarding this motion, it would only be repeating the content of the motion ,ergo the argument or position you are staking is again, non-sensical.

I trivialise the analogy between Nazis and Jews or ISraelis? You certainly have a unique take on things but I am beginning to develop a conspiracy theory of my own since your wording and style mirror that of another U75 member but I will let this play itself out (as long as civility is maintained).

Judging from your join date you have , or should have seen enough of my posts that I myself make that very same accusation of people who are geuninely guilty of it. To then make that accusation against me is merely trying to be antagonistic and quikly becoming a waste of time on my part.

I would ask you, kindly, that if you insist on makming such ridiculous statements, to offer us an example of said behavoir. Surely that should not be all that difficult if I am truly guilty of said action(s), right? Thanks in advance.

As for the last part of your post (non-sequitor (sic)), I would not support any Academic or Artistic Boycott against any nation, even Nazi Germany. Art and Education have the abilities to change cultures rapidly, more rapidly than a shortage of beef. I have stated as much many times here and elsewhere.

Again, I will try to locate an original copy of the Motion, worded as Post reporter Johnny Paul has reported.

 

[Grandma Death]

Again, I will try to locate an original copy of the Motion, worded as Post reporter Johnny Paul has reported.

Unless of course:

You attack me with a made up ad hom.
Your repeatedly ask me.
I decide to flounce.
Or I'm off somewhere in the hope I never get asked for this evidence again.

 

[DexterTCN]

As for the last part of your post (non-sequitor (sic)), I would not support any Academic or Artistic Boycott against any nation, even Nazi Germany. Art and Education have the abilities to change cultures rapidly, more rapidly than a shortage of beef. I have stated as much many times here and elsewhere.

The Nazis had a way with artistic expression.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah, or rather the Nazi regime had the ability to change art and education rather rapidly.

 

[frogwoman]

But they looked so cool with their uniforms. So well choreographed as well.

 

[DexterTCN]

Rhythmic.

 

[Ungrateful]

"IF it was changed....": I do believe that the link I provided has the union itself saying as much.

Maybe its your English but the citation from the source says no such thing. It makes, at this stage, no demands on members, nor does it discriminate on the basis of religious or ethnic identity. If you can show it does, which so far you haven't, I would cease to be a member and Rep'. How are you willing to change your behaviour given that the evidenctial base indicates that you are wrong?

"...Could Rachamim provide a source for the original wording that Rachamim claimed existed?": You mean aside from the author of the Jerusalem Post article whose name I have mentioned no less than 3 times?

You clearly don't understand the distinction between a PRIMARY source and a SECONDARY source. A quotation from a critic, quoted in a newspaper (regardless of the biases and inadequacies of that paper), is less reliable than a primary source, such as either the current motion (which you admit makes no such claim despite earlier documented assertions) or any previously ruled out motions from the Union. Just because a motion is ruled as illegal does not mean it is anti-Jewish (and as yet no ordinary UCU member has seen the legal ruling).

"Copy of the Original Motion.": I am sorry, forgive me if I am in error but did you not tell us that you were a memeber of the entity in question? Either way I am sure that with a bit of time and digging (and patience on your part because I have someone who was promised some source material before you) that I should rather easily (I imagine) provide a copy of the original motion Johnny Paul talks about.

I would be grateful, if you would present the original motion with Mr Paul refers to. However, it might be wise that before you accuse people of bigotry against jewish people (and not just at UCU, but the British trade union movemen) that you have some SUBSTANTIAL evidence first.

""Overt Anti-Semitism.": The word "anti -Semitism" is misnomer...

I had no idea you felt so strongly about the time 'anti-semitism', I shall refer to 'anti-Jewish prejudce' is that makes it easier for you.

I trivialise the analogy between Nazis and Jews or ISraelis? You certainly have a unique take on things but I am beginning to develop a conspiracy theory of my own since your wording and style mirror that of another U75 member but I will let this play itself out (as long as civility is maintained).

Making unsubstantiated allegations (or possible an ad hominem attack) is not the same as answering the criticism. I have no other alter-egos on this site. But you do misuse the Nazi analogy and make spurious allegations of 'anti-Jewish prejudice' on little or no evidence. Such accusations seem to be based on political expediency.

Judging from your join date you have , or should have seen enough of my posts that I myself make that very same accusation of people who are geuninely guilty of it. To then make that accusation against me is merely trying to be antagonistic and quikly becoming a waste of time on my part.

I'm afraid I haven't read many of your previous postings, though I have a feeling I haven't missed too much.

I would not support any Academic or Artistic Boycott against any nation, even Nazi Germany. Art and Education have the abilities to change cultures rapidly, more rapidly than a shortage of beef. I have stated as much many times here and elsewhere.

Whilst I have been largely critical of you Rachamim18 this seems a genuinely brave, though in my view mistaken, position. Not many people would support trade and cultural links with Nazi Germany (I have a nasty feeling this admission may be quoted against you later). What sort of cultural links might have subverted their genocide?
Odd you are happy to provide cultural and educational links to the Nazi regime, which would not allow Jews to lecture in their universities (and other more hideous harms) but support bans on Norman Finkelstein. Is he really more dangerous than the Nazis?

 

[rachamim18]

Gradnma: Ahhhh, time for a more than annual response to yuor postts. What you SHOULD have posted was..."AS long as I do not call you a CUN&, or your mum a CUN#." We would leave that out though, would we not? Forgive me, butr I will repeat the words of another recent poster and ask just why you bother to post in threads that I participate in if you are not going to add to the trrain of thought, or issue at hand? If you have some deep seated need to interact with me, see an analyst. Otherwise, please leave discourse to grownups. Thank you in advance.

Dex :"Nazis had a way with artistic expression.": I love what they did with art deco but they trounced Bauhaus so they negated that one good deed. Actually, the did have an eye for art, carting off train after train of stolen art ahead of the bombers.

And you and Frog are correct, they were masters of fashion and of motion. No wonder everyone tried copping their style including Jewish Revisonists.

 

[rachamim18]

Ungrateful: My time is of course limited at this early hour (just after 6 am here) but i will offer you a verbatim wording from Johnny Paul's original Post article, dated 5/29/08:

"The University and College Union, largest trade union for academics and related staff in higher education , voted on a motion to begin an Academic Boycott of Israel in Manchesteron Wednesday, 5/28/08. The Motion passed without debate and asks members "to consider the moral and political implications of links with Israeli institutions and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagueswith whom they are collaborating." Anti-Boycott Activists say the motion demands that Jewish and Israeli Academics explain their politics before normal normal conduct ensues, in other words as a pre-requisite of contact.. The union prides itself on promoting equality for all and actively opposes "all forms of harrassment, prejudice, and unfair discrimination." The British Foreign Office says it is firmly against any boycotts against Israeli Universties or Academics. The UCU's own lawyers deemed last year's Motion on this as unlawful and ruled it cannot be implemented. Never the less, another Motion was introduced. The push began in 2004 by a tiny minority of far left members."


That in its own words is the article. I did cataloug the url as I usually try to do, but do not know if I got it down correctly. Never the less, www.jpost.com/servletSattelite?cid=1211872839819&pagename=JPost%


In fact it is the anti-Bopycott activists who maintain that all Jews would be questioned and without corroborating evidence to that point I will conmceed that it probably did not mean that as such BUT at the same time it does STILL ask members to QUESTION ISRAELIS (and I am sure they would not be asking anyone from al Quds would they?) as to their political orientation regarding what this union calls "OCCUPATION." That in and of itsel fi is atrocious and any games around it no less so.

 

[rachamim18]

Ungrateful: Back to your first point: Maybe you do not see "Asking its members to discuss "political this or that" " as invasive or incorrect in any way buit attaching prerequisites to anything of an academic nature is quite offencive to most people.

As to your second point, I appreciate your understanding of my defiucinicies in English but never the less, I am in full understanding of the differences between first and secondary sources. Johnny Paul is a secondary, while OCU is a first, and since Johnny provided the first verbatim in his piece, what is the point you are trying to make? That the Post is a tabloid and suspect by nature? That is laughable but it could be made a point if one wanted to nitpick. See, here comes the problem though, even the Home Office has commented on it and I myself heard a piece about it on BBC World yesterday so in fact it exists, it exists as Paul reported it, and it is offencive. What you yourself choose to do about it is an issue for you and your conscience. Personally I would never associate with anything asking me to discuss the political orientation of anyone else before beginning a relationship. Harks back to an earlier time, say 60 years ago.


Funny how the left becomes the right and it all stays just the sam,e. Others have heard me rail about the meaningless boxes we construct for ourselves in terms of political labels and here is the proof.

"Accusing people of bigotry.": Well, let us take a fair and quicck (forgive me, that time thing again) at the whole thing. We have people being murdered in the Congo just hours ago, Darfur running on for a couple of years, Chad almost as long, Zimbabwe for 20 years, S. Africans massacarring foreign blacks, Chechnya under the Putin yoke, Burmese not only being denied democracy but now succor, Hen in Cambodisa, and on and on and on and on and all your organisation can see fit to do is complain about a Security Barrier that has caused a drop in the 90th percentile in terms of fatal attacks? Sounds quite biased to me but if you have a better explanation, love to hear it.

Especially love to hear it if it includes the 4 non-combatant Israelis killed over the last 16 days by rocketry from Gaza. Oh, and you might want to include the Thai Guest worker who had his hand blow off as well...or the 250,000 Gazans who are still without most of their electricity because PIJ bombed their own conduits. I can go on all day actually. I think the record speaks for itself. When you make a point of going after one tiny demographic in light of all the worlds' troubles and your organisation has no direct connection to the strife there, there exists an ulterior motive. If you have one other than anti-Jewishnmess, love to hear about it. Me? It is the same old song. Ignore all the rest and point the finger at the Jew. If that is not biased, what is?

"Anti-Semitism.": Far be it from me to dictate which and what words you yourself use. Just mentioning which ones I do not and the pointless of that phrase.


"Nazi allegory.": Again, PLEASE< provide a single example. Thanks in advance.

As for my views as to what is and what is not anti-Jewish, that comes down to subjective reasoning and there is no way for either you or I to qualify it or disqualify it.

"Haven't read too much of Rachamim's past posting but has the feeling he has not missed much.": And yet here you are wasting all your precious time with this issue. Kind of sad then. Never the less, the world will turn.

"Not supporting Academic or Artistic Boycotts against Nazis.": I am quite familiar with the Nuremburg Laws, thank you. It still does not change the very basic truth. Finkelstein is denied admission to Israel because he decided to hobnob with the Hezbollah Commander of Southern Lebanon and and Hezbollah, contrary to EU philospophy is a terrorist organisation and a stated enemy of Israel. He was not denied entry due to his politics per se in fact we have MKs whop make Finkelstein's views look like a joke. That is to say nothing of some of our academics.

Getting back to the Nazis, denying them an art show would not have meant a damn thing as far as their program of genocide. Anyone who thinks so is very naive (put politely). You achieve certain objectives utilising certain tools, like economic boycotts for example, or material boycotts as in imported steel. Deprioving the Nazis of a Hooper or Whistler would not have meant a damn thing to anyone.

 

[Grandma Death]

Gradnma: Ahhhh, time for a more than annual response to yuor postts. What you SHOULD have posted was..."AS long as I do not call you a CUN&, or your mum a CUN#." We would leave that out though, would we not?

Except that I never called your mother that did I.....

Forgive me, butr I will repeat the words of another recent poster and ask just why you bother to post in threads that I participate in if you are not going to add to the trrain of thought, or issue at hand?

Mmmm...we were having a lively discussion here-forgotten that? Of course you have...because I and several other posters often engage with you and the issues to hand. However mysteriously you always back peddle when asked for evidence. Funny that. If you don't want other issues spilling into other threads like this then debate properly and stop running away from debate and answer the questions put to you by other urbanites.

 

[rachamim18]

Yawn...When does it EVER end? Do you go to school? Job maybe? Why am I the center of your mundane existence? Try a dating site or some such nonsense please. My dancecard is full, happily married and all that and hetero to boot so please, give it up.

 

[tangentlama]

Yawn...When does it EVER end? Do you go to school? Job maybe? Why am I the center of your mundane existence? Try a dating site or some such nonsense please. My dancecard is full, happily married and all that and hetero to boot so please, give it up.

Don't flatter yourself.

Do you think the pair of you could call a truce? This exchange between you both has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Failing that, get a room - This room is 'debate' - if you want 'snipe', you need to take it to PM.

 

[hipipol]

And?

If you want everyone to love you Rachy, try to influence your Govt to stop being such deranged miltaristic shits - suspect everyone will sned bunches of flowers then

 

[rachamim18]

Drum roll. You see Tangent, despite the witticisms, it has little to do with who I am and all to do with what I am.

Hipipol: Can you tell me another nation that absorbs at least 5 rockets a day and soes nothing to deal with it? Name one and we can talk about it.

 

[teqniq]

...deranged miltaristic shits...

Speaking of which:

Israeli minister threatens Iran
Israeli deputy PM Shaul Mofaz
Mofaz, a former army chief, may be lining up a challenge to Olmert

A top Israeli official has said that if Iran continues with its alleged nuclear arms programme, Israel will attack it.

source

 

[Grandma Death]

Do you think the pair of you could call a truce?

Truce?

There's nothing to call a truce over. I'm up for having honest and lively debate-and I expect other posters when they engage with me to do likewise. I expect them to qualify their statements or claims with credible sources as well as not walk away from debates when the discussion is in mid flow-as has clearly been shown to be the case with the Tutu thread. This isn't about us-I and several other urbanites pressed rach for evidence in the aforementioned thread and he's chosen to ignore the requests once again.

Now if you think thats an acceptable standard of debate then each to their own. I for one believe forum users who make bold claims and statements should have those views rigorously tested and they should be pressed on provision of clear evidence-particularly so when they promise to provide that evidence.

So once again-this isn't about us,its about exposing weaknesses in the constant barrage of apologist propaganda that emanates from his mouth.

 

[Grandma Death]

Yawn...When does it EVER end?

When you stop walking away from threads when pressed for evidence that you promise.

When you start to post credible links.

When you stop making up ad homs to deflect from providing evidence.

 

[rachamim18]

I think you English call that "Calling the kettle black" or some sort of nonsense. Again, back to your histronics. Actually, Tangent is correct. Every , single thread in which I participate (most in this forum having to do with Israel) you pop up, insult me, and then put on your 8 inch lifts and challenge me to produce soimething or other. It does get a a bit tiring so I will return to my tried and true technique of leaving you to giggle at my deficincies as you iomagine them and continue conversing with adults. Giggle away. Now that I think og it, "giggle" and "Google" are pretty similar so instead of just "giggling," why not "Google" some of those sources you seem to want so badly. That might take care of your problem in one fall swoop.

 

[nino_savatte]

You make statements, which you fail to support with any evidence. When asked to provide proof, you come up with a myriad excuses. You accuse others of "ad hims" but are quite content to dish out insult after insult. You are, put simply, dishonest and evasive. Your only riposte to this accusation is to claim that you are more "adult" than anyone else. However, your posts present an altogether different story.

Oh and tangent is shit-stirring. For some unknown reason, tangent seems to think that you're honest and worth debating.

 

[laptop]

When does it EVER end?

Probably when the state of Israel withdraws to 1967 borders (in Jerusalem too), dismantles the Wall and accepts the right of return.

And then there's that Army base on the hill above Nablus, which I am informed Palestinian negotiators were told wasn't up for discussion until after the status of Jerusalem and the right of return. Wow. What's in there?

Ah, yes, nuclear disarmament would help, as well.